User talk:Chemboy510

November 2023

Hello, I'm Schazjmd. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sacramento, California without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Battle of Fort Dearborn, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Prairie Astronomer ^{Contributions} 21:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles

Wikipedia article titles only use a disambiguator (the extra text in parentheses after the title) when necessary to differentiate two articles that otherwise have the same name. That doesn't appear to have been the case for any of the articles you recently moved to new titles. Please don't move articles just to add unnecessary parenthetical text to the title. Schazjmd (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a different editor who agrees with User:Schazjmd. Please see WP:Disambiguation policy. Page titles do not normally have parenthetical descriptors unless they directly guide the reader to their chosen page. I have protected Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo against further moves. BTW, everybody appreciates your WP:BOLD. But this is a lesson you should accept and move on to the next thing. If you need help feel free to call on User:Schazjmd or myself. No editor is here to argue with you. If on the other hand you can take contructive criticism, welcome and thanks! BusterD (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary changes in articles

I've started to notice that you've been making a lot of unnecessary and unconstructive changes to articles related to U.S. history related to replacing "Native American" with "American Indian" for no particular reason--I'd urge you to please stop doing that. Darling (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made an edit to Andrew Jackson, reverted by Darling, in which your edit summary said you were giving more insight but your edit was not more insightful. I'm glad that you have take an interest in Indigenous topics but these edits are not okay. If you have questions you can feel free the ask on my talk page. --ARose Wolf 15:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Darling (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply below

Chemboy510, please stop adding words without substance, as you did most recently here. And what's "explains to the world on why" about? That added "on" is not English. You have received similar warnings before, for instance immediately above. If you continue to ignore them, you will be blocked for wasting the time of other editors. Please say something below this post if you are aware of having this page, your own talkpage, because I'm starting to suspect you may not be. Bishonen | tålk 14:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Also, do you mind explaining what User talk:Chemboy513 is for? Drmies (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, the account Chemboy513 was when I misspelled my account "chemboy510" wrong while logging in, I have not much use for it as of now. Chemboy510 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Shearonink

Hello, Chemboy510. You have new messages at Talk:George Washington.
Message added 17:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Chemboy510, since you have continued to edit without replying to me despite my specific request above that you do, I have now blocked you. I'm assuming you weren't aware of this page, but hopefully my note in the block log has now helped you find it. Please respond below. If you show some understanding of the problems people have been writing about here, and if you promise to try to avoid them going forward, I'll unblock you. You also need to respond to Drmies's message about the account Chemboy513. Bishonen | tålk 23:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen i have just seen and received your reply/request On your concerns and i have understood them. Chemboy510 (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I need you to show you have understood my concerns, not merely say that you do. For instance, above, I gave an example of where you "added words without substance" in this edit. And User:Darling, higher up on the page, talked about "making a lot of unnecessary and unconstructive changes to articles related to U.S. history", for instance by replacing "Native American" with "American Indian" for no particular reason. If you understand what's specifically wrong with these specific examples, please explain it to me, and explain how you intend to try to avoid the same problems in the future.

And User:Drmies, concerning Chemboy510's reply to you above, do you understand how an account can be created merely by a misspelling when logging in, in the way the user describes? Because I have to say I don't. Bishonen | tålk 12:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

No, Bishonen, I don't understand that either, nor do I believe it. More important to me, though, is that they address your concerns, which I share. Drmies (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well, Bishonen there is no problem necessarily with also saying "native American" instead of "American Indian" but in George Washington at paragraph 4 if you want to say "native American" that's also fine, however I was mainly trying to separate the "into" with "assimilating native Americans" as It was stuck together (and probably still is as of now) and a clear editing mistake. I was also specifying that Washington was waging war with tribes which would have been more clear Imo. Chemboy510 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand what the problem is, and I don't get the sense that you much care. You say the original wording is "also fine", but that's exactly what's wrong: you keep changing perfectly good wording to other, usually also good wording. (Though sometimes you introduce errors; I asked you about one of them above, but I'm getting tired of repeating these things.) You make a lot of changes that aren't improvements. Why? Note that I have only given you a couple of examples (and you only even mention one of them; what about this change, that I specifically asked about? Did you even follow my link and look at it?), but it's actually something you do all the time. Here is another example I'm picking at random. I'm sorry, but I can't unblock you at this time, as I have no faith in your ability to avoid the problem going forward. If Drmies should want to unblock you, I'm OK with that. Bishonen | tålk 16:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. This change is a mess btw. The original wording clearly refers to responses to Jackson after his presidency, up to and including modern times. This you have changed, but have kept the original tense and punctuation, which no longer fit. People shouldn't have to follow you around and clean up things like that. And, as ARoseWolf has pointed out above, your edit summary is completely misleading. Bishonen | tålk 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen I hadn't seen this one--indeed, that's a mess. Chemboy, no. You need to do better than this. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, Chemboy's edits can be helpful but they can equally be damaging to the article. I am curious if Chemboy looks at article talk pages before making edits like this. There is a months long discussion about the lead and close to ten editors worked closely together on the wording of the lead to make sure it was balanced and summarized the article neatly. While I think most of the time any article can be improved there does come a point where one has to look at an article and say if it is really close we should only make changes that are necessary. Andrew Jackson is also under featured article review so I would encourage them to attempt to find out a little more about what may being going on with an article before making such drastic edit choices should their editing privileges be reinstated. --ARose Wolf 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chemboy, Drmies and I don't want to unblock you. Your answers have been poor and minimal, and do not promise well for the future. But you are entitled to ask an uninvolved admin to review your block. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the foot of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Replace "Your reason here" with your actual reason. Bishonen | tålk 18:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

when can I expect a uninvolved admin to unblock me or get to me on my request for unblock? Chemboy510 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. Soon, typically--but in this case, admins might look over this talk page and decide not to take any action. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what can I do for them to take action on this? Chemboy510 (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Please keep in mind that this is not a government agency supported by tax payers, or a store with customers. We're volunteers here, and whether any of them want to spend their time on this is up to them. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unblock reason

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chemboy510 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reason is that I was making edits that were unnecessary and not needed and wasn't aware of other editors on my talk page for asking the reason about it as I didn't know I had a talk page due to me just joining Wikipedia a month ago with a account. Chemboy510 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can't seem to tell us what specifically was problematic about your editing, therefore since it may repeat in the future the block is needed to prevent the disruption caused by your editing. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chemboy, I've put your unblock request correctly into the template, so that it will hopefully call an uninvolved admin here. (There shouldn't be any nowiki code in it.) Bishonen | tålk 21:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]